Cyberlaw discussion/Day 3

Title 47, Communications Decency Act (Section 230)

• Part (c)(2)(a) seems to allow "interactive computer service providers" to block any content, regardless of whether it is constitutionally protected. Part (d) states that the provider must further inform users about options to filter on their own. Why not the converse? Shouldn't the ICSP have an obligation to tell its users that certain content is being blocked? Cjohnson 09:12, 4 January 2008 (EST)

• • But the purpose of the legislation seems to be to avoid the incentive system of the Compuserve/Prodigy decisions, where good-faith filtering was punished with increased burdens. An obligation to inform users of blocked information, especially when the ICSP conducts frequent minor edits or may not have effective means of contacting its users (consider if they simply failed to require an e-mail address on registration), could make the filtering that Congress is clearly trying to encourage so burdensome that it'll be abandoned. Kratville 11:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

• • • How about a compromise - require the ICSP to broadly inform users (perhaps when they first sign up) that the site operator filters content? ie, that they will not necessarily be receiving a free flow of speech / communication? My concern is that site operators could restrict content in a way that creates a biased world view, without informing users that this is going on... Cjohnson 11:14, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, 489 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2007)

• I think the court does a good job of literally applying the CDA. It does so by establishing a two-part test to determine whether Roommate is an "information content provider" and therefore not immune from liability: "(1) whether Roommate categorizes, channels and limits distribution of information, thereby creating another layer of information; and (2) whether Roommate actively prompts, encourages, or solicits..." However, I find the implications troubling.

The first prong removes the CDA liability shield when the site filters and sends targeted emails to the end user. The user could, theoretically, search through every profile and obtain the same information manually. The Roommate opinion seems to create a disincentive to develop technology that automates an otherwise mind-numbingly inefficient task. That is, it impedes progress.

Under the second prong, the CDA liability shield exists when a site requests open-ended free-text. This seems to create a disincentive to develop organized profiles with distinct fields. Such organization facilitates reading/understanding by both humans and computers. Again, the opinion is an impediment to progress. Cjohnson 10:57, 4 January 2008 (EST)